About your Search

20121226
20130103
STATION
CNNW 4
CSPAN 3
CSPAN2 3
LANGUAGE
English 10
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
norquist. now, i've known grover norquist for a long time. i think he's a fine person. he holds no elective office and, in fact, he wasn't elected president. so the president of the united states who is responsible for figuring out our problems who has not offered a single serious, cost-cutting measure, i mean, tell me what you think barack obama's going to go to the house and senate democrats and say i need a yes vote on this cost cutting. instead of dealing with the fact that the president of the united states is once again totally failing to provide leadership, the president has cleverly gotten us worried about whether grover norquist now defines the republican party. because as we all know, if we are not worthy of the news media's respect and love -- [laughter] we are a party that will disappear. i mean, just listen to the tone of the language when you watch morning joe or you watch, you know, even fox and friends are off on this whole. shtick. and grover did something very important. he came up with the idea of a no-tax increase pledge as a way of drawing a line in the sand. i voted ag
of all the games going on and there are you, grover norquist, a very bright guy still resolutely saying a pledge is a pledge is a pledge, it cannot be broken when many of your own party are now saying you know, what it doesn't make sense to have this irresolute position anymore. >> two things, the pledge is not for life. but everybody who signed the pledge, including peter king, who tried to weasel out of it -- shame on him as the "new york sun" says tonight. i hope his wife understands commitments last a little longer than two years or something. >> whoa, hang on, hang on. that was a bit below the belt, grover. >> hey, if you think a commitment is not for as long as you make it for, the commitment for the pledge as peter king well knows when he signed it is as long as you're in congress you will rein in spending and reform government, not raise taxes. it's not for 500 years or two generations. it's only as long as you're in the house or the senate. if he stayed too long, that's his problem. but you don't tell the bank, oh, the mortgage, wasn't that long time ago? if you make a commitme
norquist had said never cut any spending? i'm going to sign a bill that says never cut and spending. grover norquist, here's a great example, he does not even believe in economic case multipliers. host: gary says -- guest: what's interesting about the last election cycles is we had under president bush and the end, democrats seized control of congress in big numbers. and we had the big democratic sweep with the white house in 2008. 2010, republicans came sweeping back. we've had a pendulum swing, very contractive time period. that's one of the factors. we have seen both sides really dug in because they don't know where the pendulum will swing in the next direction. host: from one of our viewers -- on facebook -- guest: that's right. one of the points she raises is it's easy to look and collectors and say we will just drop 10% of this program and 20% off that program. but when you get down to the individual programs, we're talking state and local police departments, fire departments, teachers' pay, all sorts of programs that have different constituencies that you would feel the impact of som
-- quote from another player -- that is from culver norquist. -- grover norquist. he is suggesting that the gop's negotiating position in the fiscal debate is stronger than being reported. that is at grover norquist for you. others have weighed in as well -- as well. here is "the new york times" -- james in oklahoma, a democratic caller. what is your take? caller: my question is, who is running this country? is it the president, the congress, or is it the american people? the american people break the back to survive on a daily basis. congress does not have that problem. i may not get to eat just because to feed -- just to feed my kids. congress does not have that problem. they do not share the problems. they do not care about our problems. all as long as they get with it and what they got. thank you. host: alex in georgia, republican color. -- caller. caller: happy new year to everybody. i think it is a win, ironically, for republicans. i think anybody of any common- sense realizes -- i will even say you are going to say $300,000 and above, even for household, that is at the chair
broken the iron grip of grover norquist on the republican party, at least in the senate, and taxes have gone up on the top 2% and that will help us if going forward. and then secondly, we have a compromise. and that is really vital to this country, to see that congress can have debates in division and can make decisions. and there is no harm that is being done by this bill to the american economy and the american middle class. there is some positive things here, despite the fact that both sides are going to have a lot to criticize, and the thing that is alarming to everybody is that two months from now, we're going to be back at it again with the debt ceiling, with the -- with the budget expiring, and that is going to be another fight all over again. >> you know, congressman, you say that there will be no harm to the american middle class. but the republicans would argue that by not putting in any spending cuts, that in fact you are harming the middle class, because it is just incurring more and more and more debt. the house minority leader nancy police plo pelosi said up or down vote.
built into a broad media system. we can talk about the primary electorate but people like grover norquist and rush limbaugh and cable television trucks and talk-radio and they might otherwise be willing to look for solutions and can't because if they do they are dead if. they are beyond outrageous and you get no push back because whenever you have a political figure who just try is a little bit to say that is too much the new world of the media basically tells us that the business model that works is the fox news model and somehow a network of an audience at any given time as to in the half million people they can make more profits than all three network news divisions combined with an audience of 40 million people. and is that true? >> $700 million. it's enormously successful. and if we abandon that business model, if fox news to mauro says all right, here is the new message from roger ailes, can't we all just get along? we may not like what this president likes to do but he is a good man and we can find ways to work with them. i will guarantee you is that within a week there wo
't think said people exist in the republican party. listen, the answer is grover norquist no new tax pledge. that alone would free the republican party to engage in good faith, sensitive negotiations. everybody knows that our taxes are now at an historic low in the contemporary era and they're going to go out sort of naturally. and with the aging of the population, i guarantee you will be somewhere around 22% gdp. wouldn't it be nice if we could acknowledge that and say what's the most bowl, efficient way to structure a tax system, probably progressive consumption tax direct it in ways to accomplish a whole host of object is. as long as you have that pledge to which members signed, it's hopeless. the republican party cannot be a player in any constructive resolution of the problems confronting the country. there is no political space for a third-party to occupy. it's based on a presumption. we have two extreme parties and there's this great center to mobilize and i'm deeply skeptical that there's room for such a party and would really play a constructive role. is it going to get worse than
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)